THE OTHER SHOE

First off, check the date on this posting!  I want to call your attention to that because I want you to know that "I called it" when it happens.   The "it" I'm referring to is the Great Recession.  I'm not only going to explain why it's going to hit Canada, I'm going to explain how and give you a good indication of when. 

But, you say, the Great Recession has already hit Canada, has it not?  IT HAS NOT.  There isn't a single economist anywhere in the world who thinks Canada got hit by the Great Recession of 2008 and while most of them are congratulating Canada for its regulatory foresight that helped us avoid a disaster, none of them have clued into why Canada didn't get hit by it in 2008, or that the blow is yet to come.

This is not to say that Canada didn't go into recession in 2008, but look around and anyone with a pair of working eyes and some common sense (yes, all three of you) can plainly see that what's been going on here isn't even as bad as the 1988 recession that put thousands out of work and caused nearly as many to walk away from their homes and declare bankruptcy.

This economic downturn, and that's the worst you can call it for Canada, has only affected the average Canadian because....

1) Our Federal Government's first response to the "Greatest Economic Crisis Since the Depression" was a weak and openly partisan economic statement (ie: Mini-budget) that would've resulted in a change of Government had our weasel of a Prime Minister not shut down the joint in the greatest act of self-preservation since the first Caveman realized he didn't have to be faster than the bear to survive, just faster than his friends the bear was also chasing.

2) Without any clear direction from the Federal Government, which was busy avoiding governing lest they lose their already tenuous grasp on power (see above point), the rest of the country held its breath.

I say held it's breath because that's the only way to describe what happened.  Canadian Corporations across the land put a freeze on all spending, hiring and as much as possible firing until they knew what the Government's reaction to the "Greatest Economic Crisis Since the Depression" (GECSD) was going to be, and seeing as our Head Weasel was more worried about his job than anyone else's in the country there wasn't any reaction to witness or plan around.

And the average Canadian, not knowing if they'd have a job after the Ostrich in Charge pulled his head out the sand and did something, held their breath too.  So the winter of 2008 had a whole bunch of people who probably were not losing their jobs avoiding any and all discretionary spending lest the Government come up with a plan to deal with the GECSD by laying off half the nation. 

And when a lot of people hold back discretionary spending the service industry takes a hit, so like any self-fulfilling prophecy thousands of people lost their jobs.  But most of those were low paid office temps and seasonal retail workers whose combined spending power made barely a blip on the national GDP.   It was the greatest case of over-reaction ever to hit the country.  We weren't a target, weren't being affected, but reacted like the house was on fire, just in case something happened.  And we caused a small "it" to happen while waiting.

But because "it" was small and self-created Canada appeared to weather the economic storm as unscathed as someone who was sitting in a park while their neighbour's house burnt down.  Yet, because we caused a small "it" to happen we weren't so unscathed that pundits weren't pushing past each other to praise our Weasel-in-Chief when he finally got around to doing his job.

It wasn't until the impact of our largest trading partner's economy collapsing (ie: America) began to affect exports that our Company of Misfits running Canada finally got their ball rolling and created a stimulus package that sounded great on paper.  I say "Sounded Great" for the simple reason that most of the money was already earmarked.  It came out when it did because the Feds held up all spending while they "reviewed the situation" (if you open a newspaper from November 2008 and look you'll see that Mr Harper and his ilk were actually waiting to see what America did BEFORE committing to any in-action of their own).

Then, to capitalize on the situation as much as possible, our leaders ensured that the only "shovel in the ground" projects that went ahead were either in solid Conservative ridings, or in ridings that almost elected a Conservative (so-called "Marginal Constituencies").

The fact is though, had our Parliament staying in session during the early days and had someone been at the wheel that knew what they were doing, they would've quickly pointed out that the impact of the GECSD wouldn't be felt for months and that the last thing Canada needed was a pre-emptive panic.  The so-called "steady hand at the wheel" approach is completely lacking from our current regime.

So instead of a leadership Canadians have been subjected to an ad-hoc, self-fulfilling prophesy, something that wasn't as bad as we were told it could be by the very people trying to keep their own jobs.  And because there really wasn't anything yet to worry about, and nothing too seriously happened because of it, the leaders of this country have come off looking like idiot savants.

 

Cue end of 2009 and the two warning signs of the "other shoe".

Shoe #1:  In order to get the Federal Budget back under control Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has warned there will be belt tightening in 2010. 

Shoe #2:  Various sources have warned Canadians should concentrate on getting their debts under control because when the US economy begins to recover their interest rates will start to climb and ours will follow suit.

 

The belt tightening of Shoe #1 is the circumstance that will lead to disaster.  Not because the Federal Government spent a lot on the stimulus but because incoming tax revenues have tanked (for proof of this look at Provincial budgets, which haven't spent much on stimulus at all but are still showing record deficits because of the drop in revenues).  The Conservatives keep saying they spent a lot on stimulus, but unless you count the costs of putting up "paid for by your Conservative government" signs most of this money was already earmarked for approved projects.  They're trying to take credit for something they already did, and in some cases, because the projects were approved and earmarked by the former Liberal Government they're trying to take credit for something someone else did.  Why does that sound familiar? 

But when the revenues fell, well, in any normal year the Feds would've suspended these projects because they weren't getting enough revenue to pay for them, but they couldn't be seen doing that in 2008.  Not while half the planet was spending Tax money their grand-children's children wouldn't earn.

The biggest reason this is a problem for Canada is because a lot of these projects, and their related debt, could've been covered with by raising the GST a few cents to cover them.  Keeping in mind that each penny of the GST represents $4.5 Billion annually.  Unfortunately your federal government would prefer to cut the services your tax dollars pay for than raise taxes, particularly the dreaded GST.   But anyone who lived in Ontario during the Mike Harris years can tell you how that works. 

Downshifting and User Fees will replace some of it but the fact is a lot of things that Canadians are proud of, and which the most desperate need, will simply cease to be. 

Say good-bye to arts funding, festivals, new schools, hospitals.  So long well maintained highways and bridges.  Ta-ta to help when you need it the most. 

There won't be any money for it so it'll all go away, as will the thousands of jobs these projects pay for, and by their extension the service sector jobs dependant on the discretionary spending of these people.  Yet, this alone is survivable, in fact, we're arguing that we're doing it now.

Shoe #2 is the real worry.  As Paul Martin demonstrated repeatedly during his term as Finance Minister Canada's economy is strong only if the housing market is strong.  It's how we avoided the US Recession of 2001, it's how we survived Mad Cow and the downturn that should've resulted from the Great Lumber dispute.  In fact, it's how we've managed to avoid the depths of the GECSGD so far.  So long as Canadians are buying homes the economy is good.

Do you see the problem yet?

Canadians only buy homes when the cost of borrowing is cheap.  The moment interest rates begin to rise that becomes less desirable.  When housing sales slump the economy slows.  When that happens, people start to lose jobs.  Only this time the Federal Government won't be there to help them because they will already have shot their load on "The Great Stimulus Theatre of 2009".

So the housing bubble is the second shoe.  And once the housing bubble in Canada collapses then Canada is in the same boat as the US, only we'll be two years behind them and entirely dependant on their recovery for our own.

And our Federal Government?  They'll probably prorogue Parliament again, and stick their heads in the sands for another 8 weeks while they try to find a way to save their collective asses.  But the math is simple.  Either we'll need tax increases or a wholesale suspension of services in this country, neither of which will help them in the next election. 

And for most of 2010, the Great Recession of 2008 will seem like the good times.

 

THE FUTURE OF FACEBOOK

After reviewing the FB Privacy settings I decided to email Facebook with the following:

DEAR FACEBOOK TEAM:

Eventually you're going to end up doing this because every little step you make is heading this way so let me show you the future of facebook and for once you can start working on something that will silence all the critics and really impress people.
We need more categories. I should be able to put every person I know on facebook into one of four categories: Family, Co-Workers, Best Friends, or Acquaintances.
Then I should be able to set every app or box on my profile to it can be viewed by/or restricted from one, two, three or all of those categories.
That way stuff I want to share with family won't necessarily be shared with co-workers (ensuring I keep my job); stuff that I share with best friends won’t necessarily be shared with family (so I won't worry about disturbing Mom or Dad with how many drinking pics I have from my last vacation); and stuff that I share with family won’t necessarily be shared with friends and co-workers (does anyone else really need to see that sweater grandma made?).
Eventually you're going to do this, why not start now before some country somewhere legislates it?

REASONS NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN - #136: WE'RE TRYING TO SAVE THE POLAR BEARS.

No matter what I do, not matter how I live my life, so long as I don’t have children I’m better for the ecology than a breeder. 

It works like this.  Say I drive to work in a poorly maintained, fuel inefficient vehicle.  Let’s put my weekly driving at 212 miles per week (all numbers adjusted to “American”).  The car gets a lousy 30mpg which means I use 3.5 Gallons a week or 183.7 Gallons per year.  That works out to a combined CO2 emission rate of 3,594 lbs per year.  Presuming I average this for my entire driving history and that works out to a luxurious 69 years of driving my total CO2 impact from driving is 247,986 lbs in the environment.  That’s a lot, right?  But I’m also married, so presuming my wife does the same our total impact is 495,972 lbs of CO2 in the atmosphere over the course of our adult lives. 

Now, let’s look at a Breeder couple that is very environmentally aware.  They cycle a lot, drive a very well maintained car, or use public transit.  The best they can hope for is a very admirable 1,797 lbs of CO2 each per year.  Assuming they both die at 70 years of age and have been commuting on their own since the age of 16, then their combined CO2 impact is a scant 194,076 for both of them.  That’s less than half of what my wife and I have done.

But they have children, so at best they’re using twice that, or roughly the same as us. 

And that’s only if they’re conserving and using public transit and bicycles all the time.  Chances are they’re not, nor are they driving a gas guzzling car like I am.  If they’re typical they’re driving an SUV or Minivan and producing 13,313 lbs of CO2 every year for each of them.   And that’s not including all the extra driving they’ll be doing as they transport their little darlings to all the events and groups and classes and games they need to attend in order grow up normal. 

Even assuming that all that adds only an extra half the CO2 each year to the family output, for only 20 years, the total environmental damage from just transporting this family has caused is a whopping 1,038,414 lbs of CO2 alone.

But those children will contribute their own CO2 to the atmosphere once they leave home.  And they’ll probably breed as well, producing more CO2 as they raise their little hellions, who will no doubt continue to breed, and so on, and so on, and so on, until the ecology collapses and this planet can no longer support life on the scale we’re used to.

And this formula applies to everything else in life.  Total food consumption, total waste output, total disposables and acquisitions. My wife and I live in a modest 890 square foot apartment.  You couldn’t put a family in that!  At the very least you’d need two floors, 1200 square feet and a backyard with the related chemicals, water and energy output required to properly maintain a lawn.  Or more effort and waste by the city on more manicured parks.

My wife and I prefer the non-landscaped natural spaces along the north banks of the river near us to the heavily manicured play spaces that cost millions of dollars to ready for breeders and their off-spring.  Which is better for the environment?  Quiet wetlands for wildlife or noisy play spaces for hell-spawn?

So even if the breeders do without all the necessities of modern living each generation will produce at least as much as my wife and I will, but with them it’s perpetual.

And no matter how bad I am, no matter how irresponsible I act, my carbon footprint ends with my death.  The polar bears have nothing to fear from me.

NEW TREK: The Motion Picture

There’s a large part of me that simply wants to give this movie a Pass, that is ignore the little mistakes, let the larger problems slide past, turn a blind eye to the weaknesses of plot and premise. 

 

The reason part of me feels this way is that historically journalists and film critics like to rain on the Trek parade with reviews that nickel and dime it to death for the lamest of reasons.  Normally.  For some reason the 2009 Star Trek movie seems to be the exception. 

 

For the first time in history nearly every critic has given a Star Trek movie a good review, some have been glowing, and even the ones determined to find something bad to say are limiting themselves to the painfully obvious “over-hyped” complaint.

 

There’s also the fact that for a hardcore Trekker like myself even bad Trek is better than no Trek and the 5 year long stretch of no Trek I’ve been living with since the TV series “Enterprise” went off the air has been painful indeed. 

 

I’ve tried desperately to keep my inner sci-fi child alive by watching the entire Babylon 5 series, which only reinforced what was missing in my life.   I even tried to keep the soft-fuzzy geek core of my being going with the new Galactica but that has proven to be an act only slightly less painful than total Trek withdrawal. 

 

Where Star Trek is a gleaming vision of hope about a future worth working towards, the new Battlestar Galactica is a reason to up your dosage of prozac or put your Analyst on danger pay.  In other words, “It’s a pill!”

 

But ‘success breeds more’ as the saying goes, and if I want more sci-fi and Star Trek in particular then what comes along has to be praised, nurtured and revered even if it’s barely watchable.

 

Because producers have balked about doing Sci-Fi because its such a tough market and Star Trek is the notoriously petulant child of the genre.  But the problem with Trek is also its strength.  For some reason this is a series/story that has never before re-cast a major role.  When Jeffrey Hunter wasn’t available for the second pilot in 1966 the creator came up with a new character and Captain Pike was replaced by Captain Kirk.

 

When the retro-phase first gained ground in the 80’s, Star Trek’s creator didn’t find young nubile background players from 90210 and start over with the early adventures of Kirk and company; he jumped 80 years later into their future and continued.  Different ship, same name.  Different uniforms, same emblems.  Different toys, same terms.  It was the same as the original, but different.

 

And then, as that story progressed, instead of rebuking what had come before, they worked very hard to conform to it, creating an increasingly difficult mountain of “canon” to follow.

 

Now, personally I don’t think it’s that big of a deal.  The Star Trek encyclopedia is only 600 pages long and there aren’t even a thousand hours of the show yet.  It really shouldn’t be that hard to keep in mind that Spock didn’t have siblings, while the guy who invented Warp Drive was from Alpha Centauri; but Hollywood people don’t like books and stuff and looking up that stuff was apparently really hard work because they kept getting these simple things wrong.

 

I mean, crack a spin people!  We know it’s possible.  US politics has more than 230 years of history behind it with hundreds of thousands of pages of agreements, resolutions, treaties and declarations and somehow the West Wing managed to produce 7 full seasons without making the first President of the United States a Frenchman. 

 

But I know the temptation to break the rules is genetically infused in the creative mind so it was obvious that anyone new making a Trek film would want to re-boot it.  In fact, many critics have been clamouring for just that.

 

And knowing I don’t handle change well so I’d been following the development of this movie from the beginning on the very simple premise that it was better to have a thousand little seizures before I saw the film than one massive aneurism while watching it.

 

So despite design quibbles about cheesy looking chrome phasers instead of realistic looking black ones; or flared warp cowlings that looked like something borrowed from a 57 Chevy muscle car; I’ve been able to keep my enthusiasm up about the movie. 

 

And I’d deliberately exposed myself to enough of the advanced clips and such that all the shock value of how uncharming Kirk would be (compared to the boyish mischief Bill Shatner gave him) or how pessimistic McCoy would be (compared to the folksy cynicism of DeForest Kelley’s portrayal) or how much more like an Apple Store the bridge looked was all going to roll off me like water on a duck’s back. 

 

And that’s because I’ve spent most of the last 35 years in that Universe and could’ve woken up in any stateroom of that ship and move through it as if it were my normal existence, so the radical changes thrust upon it needed to be absorbed before I sat through the reality of the story.

 

But the alternative to screaming uncontrably in the theatre as I noticed that every little detail was wrong had a downside.  Without the overwhelming shock value of the changes to distract me I was forced to pay attention to the story.

 

Ergo this negative review, the first and apparently only negative review of JJ Abram’s New Trek movie that does not attack it for being different from the beloved original, but instead is negative because the movie’s plot doesn’t really hold up.

 

And let me preface this by saying it’s a gorgeous film.  Some have argued it might be bad Trek but maybe it’s a good movie.  We’ll, much as I want to give them that, I can’t, because it isn’t.   This movie has a plot hole large enough to send an exploding sun through.  And its plot is so straight forwardly bad that I’m stunned I’m the first to point this out.

 

Now, I’d had high hopes on that going in too.  I’m a fan of LOST and they’ve done an amazing job of retaining credibility despite some of the most convoluted story telling in the history of stories.  Whether you like it or not I dare you to find a single major inconsistency that can’t be easily explained and addressed by visual evidence and clips from the show itself.  No “unspoken back-history filler” required.  LOST stands up on its own internal logic.

 

So with 2 of the 3 same people involved in writing the New Trek movie I fully expected they could keep up the same level of skillful storytelling for at least the 2 hours a motion picture required.  Sadly that’s one of the first area’s the movie fails in.

 

So let’s start with that.  The premise of New Trek: The Motion Picture, a JJ Abrams film, is that 134 years in the future a sun near Romulus (pointy eared bad guys sort of related to Spock’s people) goes Mega Nova and destroys the planet Romulus. 

 

Nero (leader of the surviving Romulans) is devastated.  His wife and unborn child were on Romulus when it exploded and now they’re dead.

 

Why, you may ask, does he blame old Spock for this?  Well, apparently old Spock was the Federation Ambassador to Romulus and when the evidence came in that this star would Mega Nova he promised Nero he would personally take their case to the Federation.

 

Which he did.

 

Unfortunately the only way to stop the star was to use a highly volatile material called Red Matter which the Vulcans had developed and didn’t trust in the hands of Romulans, or in the hands of old Spock who had been among the Romulans for so long that his motives are being questioned by his own people.

 

So old Spock couldn’t get the Red Matter, and the star exploded, and Nero’s family was wiped out.

 

Nero was devastated and angry, and naturally his anger turned toward old Spock and the Federation he works for, and the Vulcan’s who withheld the help he needed to save his wife and unborn child.

 

Then matters get worse.  The star isn’t just a Super Nova blowing up its star system, it’s a Mega Nova, expanding out beyond it’s star system, wiping out every other star system it finds.  Quickly the Vulcans realize that unless its stopped this Mega Nova will consume all of the Romulan Empire and half the Federation, including Vulcan and Earth.

 

So they give old Spock a ship, and enough Red Matter to cause the center of the Galaxy to contract into a black hole and send him off to save the day.

 

Nero sees this and chases after Spock, and in blind rage almost prevent old Spock from stopping the Mega Nova.  In the process Nero’s ship is pulled into the singularity created by old Spock.

 

Putting aside the incredible coincidence that Nero’s ship comes out directly in the path of a starship 150 years earlier that just happens to have Kirk’s parents on it; and putting aside the incredible coincidence that Kirk hasn’t been born yet; and putting aside the fact that Nero has no clue when or where he is; it just so happens that this ship from the future opens fire on the archaic Starship, tearing it to crap and killing Kirk’s father just as the future starship Captain is born.

 

And so Kirk grows up an unloved, aimless, wreck and almost completely misses his calling to join Starfleet until some crotchety old coot challenges him to do better than engaging in bar fights in the middle of rural Iowa.

 

Have you spotted the problem with the premise yet?  No?  Okay, lets continue.

 

Kirk eventually gets to Starfleet Academy and belatedly resumes his destiny.  Then we cut to Nero on his ship, waiting patiently at the same spot where he first arrived in this timeline.  Full of expectation that any minute now old Spock in his little guppy ship is going to come out. 

 

Why he knows this is anyone’s guess.  He went through first with no proof that old Spock was going to follow, but his coincidence detector is right on and in a convulsion reminiscent of V’Ger spitting Spock out in the first film, old Spock’s powerless ship is belched through the time anomaly.

 

Next thing we know Nero’s ship is attacking Vulcan.  Drilling a hole into its core so it can drop some of the Red Matter taken from old Spock’s ship into the heart of Vulcan and blow it up!  Well, implode it down, to be more accurate.

 

And now, the problem with this whole premise is fully revealed.  The paradox created means no matter what happens in the 134 years following this story that none of the events that made this particular timeline possible will happen.

 

1>    If the Mega Nova isn’t stopped 134 years later then half the galaxy is destroyed, including Nero and his family.  Nero will have no reason to blame the Vulcans, or the Federation, as he won’t even know about their involvement.  And the Red Matter implosion that stops the Mega Nova won’t occur to pull him back in time.  Ergo, this timeline doesn’t occur and the Federation is screwed.

2>    If the Federation can find a way to stop the Mega Nova then there’s no reason not to do it BEFORE it consumes Romulus.  Therefore Nero and his family will not perish and Nero will not go back in time.  Ergo, this timeline doesn’t occur.

3>    If the Federation cannot find a way to stop the Mega Nova in time, there’s no reason not to warn Romulus before it blows.  Therefore Nero and his family will have time to escape and Nero will not go back in time.  Ergo, this timeline doesn’t occur.

4>    If the Romulans don’t trust the Federation enough to listen to the warning then the Mega Nova consumes Romulus and it won’t be Spock, or Vulcan’s fault.  And even if Nero does blame Spock there is no Vulcan.  Regardless, without the Red Matter implosion Nero cannot not go back in time.  Ergo, this timeline doesn’t occur.

 

In fact, there isn’t a single way I’ve been able to come up with that allows this timeline to occur.  Nero has destroyed Vulcan.  New Kirk and New Spock destroyed Nero in the past with the last remaining bits of Red Matter.  No matter what happens next ultimately the events which caused this timeline will not cause it to happen.

 

So ultimately, this story is irrelevant.  A simple twist of logic rips it to shreds and it doesn’t matter what JJ Abrams and his writers do to ‘this’ storyline because this storyline is doomed to end, one way or another.

 

And because this whole thing is pointless the story loses all emotional punch for me.  It’s an irrelevant, unimportant tale that will be overwritten the moment Nero was supposed to go into the past.  The problem is, that fact is so amazingly obvious and apparent that I realized it WHILE watching the movie, which means it’s not a very good story either.

 

And none of the above complaints have anything to do with whether its good Trek or bad Trek. 

 

But on the subject of Good Trek and Bad Trek, it’s bad Trek and here’s why… 

 

The magically thing about the Original Star Trek is that each week you sat down for a morality play, and the moral was that tolerance was good, taking the high road was best, and the best way to defeat an evil person was by overwhelming them with Ghandiesque offers of help even though they keep punching you because it really, really shames them!

 

For example, in the classic Trek episode “DEVIL IN THE DARK” a group of miners are freaking because this super acidic creature is coming out of the rocks and killing them one by one.  Kirk and company are sent to help but a Starship it too big to fit in the tunnels so they don’t know what to do.  Kirk comes across a room full of perfect spheres which the Head Miner says are all over the place and made of a worthless abundant ore. 

 

Spock gets close enough to the creature to learn it’s the last of its kind and that puts him in an ethical dilemma.  Killing it is a crime against Science, but it’s standing in the way of good old progress.  At the climax the creature is injured but instead of just killing it Spock mind-melds with it, learning that it’s a mother and its eggs are the same perfect sphere’s the miners have been trashing as worthless.  It wasn’t evil, it was just trying to protect the next generation of its kind from us monsters.  Lesson: “Sometimes your opponent has a very good reason for attacking you, find out what it is first and if you can solve it, do so.”

 

In “NEW TREK” Nero has seen his family and home destroyed by a futuristic, uncaring Federation and given the opportunity to exact vengeance he takes it by killing Kirk’s father and destroying Spock’s home planet 134 years before they can hurt him.  When Kirk and Spock have finally figured out what’s going on they have a moment near the end when they could hold out the hand of friendship, offer to help Nero make sure that star never has a chance to destroy his world or his family.  “Work with us to ensure the future that made you this way never happens.”  They do but use the first refusal Nero gives as an excuse to “fire everything they have” at him.  The resulting implosion that response creates is almost powerful enough to suck the Enterprise in with their opponent (talk about instant Kharma).  Lesson:  “Offer to help but at the first opportunity screw the bastard even if it almost kills you!”

 

Just before that I’m sitting in the theatre wondering if they could somehow surprise me.  As the film was wrapping up and Nero was on the verge of the abyss it really looked like they might actually pull a Trek ending out of this movie. 

 

They dangled that classic Trek carrot in the air for a full two minutes, and then yanked it away with a visual “psyche”.  Unfortunately, after 4 seasons of the new Galactica I had no faith in humanity and never believed they’d rise above that now classic movie cliché of petty retribution.  Had they risen above it I would’ve fallen out of my chair.  Grace and generosity at the moment of triumph – how novel a plot twist that would’ve been?  How Trek that would’ve been.

 

But as I’ve already established, it doesn’t matter.  So go nuts, JJ.  Bring on Khan!  Kill Scotty!  Have a car chase through the Engine room of the Enterprise.  Your universe is pointless and nothing you do with it matters anymore because of it.

 

A DIFFERENCE THAT ISN'T A DIFFERENCE

Last week the operators of PIRATE BAY were found guilty of copyright infringement, sentenced to a year in jail each and ordered to pay upward of 3 million dollars to the various producers of TV series and movies.  While I feel for the production companies strapped by increasing costs the fact is downloading cannot be illegal.  How the show came to be in the hands of the person sharing it can be.

To illustrate my argument here are five case studies that prove the legal precedent favours PIRATE BAY:
Case 1: I record a show on video tape and loan it to a friend who never returns it. VERDICT: Legal.
Case 2: My friend who has Video On Demand calls up an episode of a show, records it on his PVR and pushes it to a DVD then gives that copy to me because I missed it. VERDICT: Legal.
Case 3: A friend moves to another country which doesn't have access to shows we like.  I record the show and mail a copy of it to him. VERDICT: Legal.
Case 4: I meet someone in a chat room who lives where these shows don't run so I record them and send them to that person. VERDICT: Legal.
Case 5: A friend moves to a country where his show isn't available and asks me to record it from my TV.  Rather than spend the money on postage I email it to him.
QUID PRO QUO: If the recording from TV and saving said copy on a blank DVD isn't illegal then emailing said product is the same as mailing it.

Now the case for PIRATE BAY: People come to a website looking for shows not available in their area. They search, find and click the link and a digital file of a TV show recorded by someone they've never met is sent to them through the internet.
QUID PRO QUO: If taping and mailing the show isn't illegal, then recording and emailing it isn't illegal, then recording and making it available for others to download via the same internet CAN NOT be illegal.

Law is based on precedent. Unless the TV Networks prosecuted people taping shows for friends AND unless the post office prosecuted people in tape rings, OR prosecuted grandmothers for mailing copies of shows taped off their TVs, then the only difference is the scope and method of transport.
If recording something in analog and mailing a physical copy of it isn't illegal then recording something digitally and sending a virtual copy CAN NOT BE ILLEGAL.
The boys at PIRATE BAY are appealing the verdict and if the law is just then they must be acquitted because precedent is on their side.

The files are only illegal if someone bought and then ripped the DVD information from it.  But that can’t be the case when the episode just aired the night before I watch it and won’t be available on DVD for many months.  So unless the TV industry wants to make recording their shows off-air illegal, PIRATE BAY will prevail.

LONG LIVE PIRATE BAY!

HAD TO SHARE THIS

Something posted on one of the blogs I troll…  Enjoy

 

A page from Harper's daily agenda:

7 am - walk cat, have morning constitutional.

7:30 - Breakfast

8:00 - move bowels again.

8:30 - lie and deceive

10:00 - spend next half hour sitting on toilet.

10:30 - publicly take credit for something good, even though had nothing to do with it.

11:30 - accuse liberals of something, slur Iggy.

12:00 - time to have a bowel movement to make room for lunch

12:30 - Lunch

3:00 - post lunch bowel movement.

3:30 - continue to lie and deceive.

etc, etc.

I wish our PM would spend MORE time in the loo. It seems it's the only time he's not lying or incompetent.

IT'S NOT AN ENTITLEMENT

I have a question. How is it legal that the Federal Conservatives can use taxpayer’s money to send me election ads?
It’s not an election but every 3 weeks or so everyone in my building, presumably everyone in the riding of Mississauga South, gets a mailer from an Albertan MP promoting an aspect of the Conservative agenda. These aren’t from their campaigns despite how they look. Apparently they come courtesy of something called “CRG-Government Caucus Services” in Ottawa.

What bothers me is the postal budget for each MPs office isn’t an entitlement. It’s for the MP to use to communicate with their constituents, or to promote important legislation (mostly private member bills) in other marginal ridings. I’ve received more than 25 of these since the Conservatives formed Government.

Like any sane person I find the regular abuse of this budget both improper and unconscionable during these times of deficits and recession. I also find the use of Parliamentary budgets to fuel this constant state of electioneering that Mr Harper seems to be in rather annoying. Most of my building does so you have to wonder how this is helping them.

Oh, and what matter is so important that Alberta MP Rob Anders felt justified wasting his ridings postal budget on it? The Tax-Free Savings Accounts the Conservatives set up so unemployed Ontarians can save money.

If they spent as much energy creating the jobs we need that might actually help us. In the meantime someone needs to tell the Alberta MPs the optics of using taxpayer money to mail out election ads isn’t good and they should stop.

AN UNAVOIDABLE COMPARISON

Despite common perception there were many experts out there who for years had been warning of the crisis. 

Most of the warnings were ignored because too many of the people who made the decisions were comfortable or helped to remain in power by those who needed the status quo.  And because power needs support there was an inherent symbiosis that grew more difficult to break as time passed. 

Vision, backbone and resolve were needed.  People who had the foresight to see what was coming and would risk everything to do what was right.  But in an age where what was right was too easily attacked by those envious of power, and where those who’d lose the most had the best resources to shout down any suggestion of reform, shouts that would cost all but the most charismatic critical support, well, there simply weren’t enough visionaries alive to make it happen.

Restrictions that were hard to enforce, and even tougher for adhere to, needed to be made a hundred times more rigid if disaster was to be avoided, but each attempt to put these reforms in place were hard fought by those who wanted the status quo to remain as it was, because who in charge wants to risk what they know for the unknown?  Sustainable the buzzword, as if an ever growing bubble was possible forever.

And even as the end neared and those who were “with” quickly became those who were “without”, few wanted to admit there was a problem with the system.  Fewer would admit the whole system needed to be scrapped in favour of a new way.

Not that it mattered.  By the time any attempt was made to stabilize things things had progressed so far that the act was simply putting off the inevitable.  The very foundation of how things were run needed to be rethought, broken down to its core, and rebuilt with a new model in mind.    

The collapse had already begun and what would’ve cost too much to avoid was costing a hundred times more just to stabilize.  Changing that, restarting from the ground up, that meant dismantling everything, it meant rebuilding, an no one could even conceive how that could happen.  That is until the system collapsed and those left behind had no choice but to start over, creating a new system in the vacuum caused by the loss of the old.

 

Now you might think what you just read is about the current economic crisis, or the looming ecological threat.  It’s actually about Russian Communism.  A system that many spent billions trying to prop up but wasn’t workable, particularly as a competitive system, and rather than early reform, a controlled transition to what the smartest in that land knew was inevitable (and many ended up in Siberia for saying) they tried to keep the system going, until it completely collapsed.  The Chinese Communists have tried to manage the same transition, but their model as well is based on an unrealistic growth model.  It too will collapse, only hopefully without creating a void that crime and the mob will rush into.

And yes, when one takes the lessons of history and applies them elsewhere, you can’t fail to see the comparative to today’s economic crisis.  Some smart observers have already said we’re in a post-consumerist society, but you wouldn’t know that from those in charge.  The power people among us are spending trillions in an attempt to stabilize things so they can return to normal while failing to realize or admit that what was ‘normal’ was a fantasy based on risky investments and the free flow of cash that didn’t exist.

And the same is true with the environment.  There are still too many who have too much say in what happens who continue to marginalize people like Al Gore.  The power continues to argue that the cost of change is too high, that the trends of the last 40 years are coincidence, that the signs are inconclusive, or that we need to continue as we are because we can’t afford to change.

Well, perhaps if the reforms had been put in the 1970’s when the first signs of planet-wide manmade environmental toxicity were first noticed we could’ve reformed our current model into something sustainable without needing a complete overhaul.  But we didn’t because those in charge were getting rich, or propped up by those who were getting rich because it was too cheap to pollute. 

And now, countries like Holland are spending Billions to prepare their shores for a rise in the oceans because they don’t believe enough will be done to avoid that; while the rest of us, 10% of which live in coastal flood zones, are blithely continuing to pollute as though we’re not somehow approaching an ecological version of what happened to our economy.

Of course, when the inevitable occurs there’ll be many who shake their heads in shock.  Who will wonder how come we didn’t see this coming? 

The irony would be delicious if it didn’t threaten half the planet.

BIZARRO WORLD HARPER

I’ve come to the conclusion that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is from bizarro world. That’s the Superman realm where everything is backward!

Fixed election dates, aren't. Accountability isn't. Transparency involves the most secretive government in Canadian history. Environmental protection means removing the protection at the first opportunity to get the economy going, which isn't going because they're not doing anything to help main street.

Everything this man says is exactly opposite of reality. So Canada despite his claims the economy is NOT good, things are NOT rosy and Canadians are NOT ready for the new passport rules.

See? He's easy to translate when you know how.

WILL THE REAL STEPHEN HARPER PLEASE SHUT UP!

During the height of the last Federal Election in Canada; Stephen Harper the Strategist broke his own rule about fixed election dates so he could run against Dion before the man quit or was driven from Leadership of the Liberals (in part because of attacks that Stephen Harper the Candidate had initiated).

He was hoping that Stephen Harper the Leader could get a majority government before the economic meltdown struck and on October 12, 2008, Stephen Harper the Candidate said, “If you don't want a carbon tax and a deficit and recession, the only way to ensure that is the case is to vote for the Conservative party."

Well, the various Harpers got their wish and thank God because although we got the deficit and recession Stephen Harper the Candidate will at least protect us from that awful forwarding thinking, new economy carbon tax!

Of course, almost immediately after the election, the one where Stephen Harper the Leader failed to get his majority despite nearly destroying the Liberals, Stephen Harper the Economist presented his government’s answer to the crisis, a statement that was nothing more than another partisan snipe at the opposition (apparently it was still Stephen Harper the Candidate in control).

And that move quickly resulted in the Opposition coming together and demanding a non-confidence vote with the idea that even a coalition government tactically supported by the Bloq was better than another week of Stephen Harper the Lunatic.

And so, being the “steady hand at the economic wheel of Canada” Stephen Harper the Strategist immediately shut down parliament so Canadians could stew through 8 weeks of economic uncertainly as the markets collapsed, and Canadian business staggered without direction from the government.

But that’s because Stephen Harper the Policymaker’s philosophy on government is pretty simple, whatever America does Canada must conform its policy to compliment because we’re incapable of charting our own course. And with a change going on south of us he couldn’t come up with any ideas until he knew what direction his American masters were going to take.

Apparently though Stephen Harper the Policymaker didn’t remember that we didn’t follow American fiscal policy while Chretien was in charge, which rankled Stephen Harper the Reform Party member at the time. And even though our nation bucked the international trend of over capitalizing their debts by getting our economic house in order and paying ours down while enforcing regulations upon our banks the fact remains that Stephen Harper the Reform party member ranted against the “stifling economic climate of Canada, a defeatist nation afraid to take risks.”

Fast forward to today, where Stephen Harper the Leader is basking in the international adulation as leader of a country that got it right fiscally in the 90’s.

One would think such a person might realize their earlier take was wrong, certainly a smart leader would say “A good idea is a good idea no matter where it came from and so I’m going to be the guy who finds the good ideas and uses them.” But apparently that would be too Barrack Obama-ish for Stephen Harper the Leader.

Which is why, on Thursday, March 12, 2009, behind doors at the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, a conservative think-tank run by former Reform Party leader Preston Manning, our fearless leader ditched the sunny disposition of Stephen Harper the Economic Cheerleader that he’d used a few nights earlier for his “rah-rah-Canada” speech to rip into Conservative ideas, libertarian thinking and specifically the opposition in a way that had even the most ardent of Conservative supporters shaking their heads in confusion.

In fact, Mike Brock, a Conservative blogger who attended the conference, called the speech bewildering. A sentiment shared by most of the people there. But that’s because Reform members aren’t real conservatives.

In 2003, after years of dual memberships designed to engineer a reverse takeover of the Conservative banner, members of the Reform Party (which by that point had renamed themselves the “Conservative Canadian Alliance Reform Party” or cCRAP) finally got the leader of the Progressive Conservatives, Peter “Two-Face” McKay, to agree to a vote on merger of the two parties. There would be local votes, riding by riding, that would select delegates to attend a national vote where the issue would be decided.

As per the PC constitution the magic number needed was 66%, but even with all those Reform members holding PC cards the real number was still only just over 51% Canada wide (although some ridings had as much as 70% support).

The trick put in was this: Ridings would gather and vote but each delegate had to get at least 51% support to be selected. As many ridings had more than 51% pro-merger members the fix was in and for many ridings 100% of their delegates supported the merger. When they finally gathered it came off like a love in.

Since 2003 some disaffected Tories, True Tories as they call themselves, formed a new PC Party even though they were legally barred from using the word Conservative in their title and had to replace it with Canadian. Others limped over to the Liberal camp where they became refugees, a few stuck with the new Conservative party but because the executive of the party is nearly 100% Reform most became political orphans.

Add to this the executive of the party is also the most dictatorial. Refusing to seat local candidates voted by individual ridings because there are a few too many Progressives out there. Instead the executive frequently overrides the democratic wishes of those local assemblies in favour of people the national executive thinks have a better chance of winning.

All this, of course, has been done to ensure the new Conservatives (or neo-cons as some have labelled them) get a majority government in parliament.

Which they can't seem to do.

After four tries now with Stephen Harper the Leader at the helm, one of which was against the effectively demonized Dion, Harper remains a marginal leader in a minority government. And no one in the party seems to have realized he's the weak link holding them back.

But the pressure is getting to the old boy. He’s starting to rant incoherently. He’s shaking hands with Obama one minute while basking in the after glow and presence of someone who is actually popular, and the next week he’s ranting about the mistakes Obama is making.

And you've gotta know you’re coming off the rails when someone like Michel Kelly Gagnon of the Montreal Economic Institute comes away from your presentation saying “If you want to vote for a centrist party, you can vote for the Liberal Party of Canada. They're very good at that.”

Although usually Harper doesn't flip-flop this quickly unless a poll has been taken but maybe what little control he’s had over these personalities is wilting under the intense pressure of being consistently wrong. Oh well, as Poppa always says, "Once a Reform member, always a Reform member."

But as I read the National Papers reporting of Harper’s post-election meltdown I canb't help but think they're being generous by implying there are only TWO FACES to Stephen Harper. They need to go back and watch tapes from various speeches and comments over the last ten years and then maybe they'll see the TEN distinct personalities flashing in front of them like a zoetrope. The man is worse than Sybil and that isn't good for Conservatism or Canada.

NOT A FLIP-FLOP, A WINDSOCK

I was living in Calgary when Reform got their first MP and saw as the party rose to dominance, but as a Conservative I couldn't understand how people would fall for their rhetoric, as indeed that's all it ever was.

Every "Reform" they spouted sounded good but was unworkable in the real world so it was obvious to me that a Reform government would get elected by promising things that were popular but then break those promises as they discovered their reforms were unworkable or put them at risk.

Sure enough, 20 years later, the Reform party is the de facto Government of Canada.  And sure enough they've gone back on nearly everything they've ever promised.  I won't bother listing them, this forum doesn't have enough space for all of it.  Go to standupforcanada.ca if you want 50 examples.

The point is a leader doesn't change according to the direction the winds of polls and focus groups dictate.  A leader has a vision and taps their own inner reserves to communicate that vision to the electorate so they can make that vision reality.

Obama says what he does because he believes it.  Harper's tune changes so often because he's saying what he thinks we want to hear.  Harper is not leader.

The only people who believe in Harper are sitting in his choir, they would vote for him regardless of what he says because they hate the alternatives more.

But the vast majority of Canadians aren't in the choir and when the opposition realizes all they need to do to nail Harper is show ads with his own words contradicting himself from one speech to the next they'll have him.

Mr. Harper isn't a flip-flop, he's a wind sock.

Prevention VS Correction

I was hoping to make this a short one today but then I got typing…

I just read the following on AP:

Associated Press

March 10, 2009 at 10:16 AM EDT

COPENHAGEN — Top climate scientists meeting in Copenhagen say sea levels could rise twice as much as previously projected.

They added that low-lying coastal areas housing one-tenth of the world's population would be flooded unless greenhouse gas emissions are curbed substantially.

A 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a sea level rise of 18 to 58 centimetres by the end of the century. But experts at a three-day conference said that sea-level rise could exceed one metre and is unlikely to be less than 50 centimetres.

The conclusions of the conference will be presented to politicians meeting in December to discuss a new global agreement on emissions.

Uh, yeah… All I can think of this: “How much would it have cost the US economy to have regulated the financial system so that recent meltdown didn’t occur?”

It’s not like there weren’t people in the industry warning people at the top about it, we’ve been seeing one after another appear on shows like 60 Minutes since October 08 (and people like Niall Ferguson and recent Canadian MP Garth Turner even wrote books about the coming financial crisis years ago). So what would it have cost the US taxpayer and the US economy to have put those regulations and such in place BEFORE there was a problem?

I’m going to be generous here and say it would’ve been a virtual figure of around $100 Billion. Now that sounds like a lot and just running around during the hey day of the wealth boom screaming “Do this and you’ll cost us a hundred Billion dollars in lost revenue!” probably would’ve been enough to keep any Bill passing into Law, certainly with the robber barons of the Bush/Chenney White House in charge.

But the cost of doing nothing until its too late is already at $3 Trillion Dollars, which is just for America, and there’s no guarantee it’ll work or get the economy moving again. The final bill could be $10 Trillion because really, you know some of what they're trying isn’t going to work because no one has ever had to kick start an economy so badly broken as the current US/World economy.

And that brings me to my point. Liberal leader Stephane Dion was soundly rejected in the last Federal election. Now admittedly a lot of it was self-inflicted because let’s face it the guy was at best a substitute teacher and at worse a weenie. But the issue the Harperites focused on the most was the Green Shift/Carbon Tax. As though shifting our economy toward something that punished polluters was going to cost the Canadian taxpayer $100 Billion.

Meanwhile we’ve just had a winter, from coast to coast, that has been filled with inconsistencies and brutal reminders of the power of mother nature. And anyone tracking weather trends lately will tell you that we’ve had more and more unstable weather. Unstable weather doesn’t just ruin our day, or screw up our vacation plans, it also makes agriculture really hard. Shorter growing seasons affect yields. Planning for normal patterns and growing wheat but getting weather better suited to strawberries when that’s not what you have in the ground is very bad for us.

And it’s not just Canada. The whole world is facing a growing food crisis.

Then there’s the coastlines. Interesting other bit of intel I can share with you is that last year Denmark earmarked 160+ Billion dollars to raise up their shoreline. That’s the country that has reclaimed countless hectares of land from the sea by building dikes and because they’ve realized the big polluters aren’t going to reform quickly enough they’re taking steps NOW to ensure that the looming disaster of rising tides is something they can deal with.

But Denmark only has 7,500 kilometres of shoreline. Canada has some 243,000 kilometers of coastline! And more than 10 percent of our population is living in coastal areas. Areas that could find themselves under a meter of water! Which doesn’t seem like much until you step out of bed one morning and get a soaker AND YOU’RE FIVE KILOMETERS FROM THE COAST!

And I recall at least twice in the last five years now that the Red River in Manitoba has flooded. Big time flooding. I mean, they’ve had systems in place for years to deal with the flooding and those were overwhelmed!

So I can’t help link the two thoughts and ask you this. When we’re paying triple for food because the farmers can’t get yields, or when we’ve got to rescue and relocate nearly 3 million refugee Canadians from the coast won’t the 100 Billion dollars the fear mongers/anti-environmentalists warned us about seem like a hell of a deal?

TIME TO REFRAME THE ECO-TERMS

I believe this continual reference to averages is hurting the eco debate.  Few people will react to 1 or 2 degree increase in the average planetary temperature because its not dramatic enough to understand the severity which that represents and also because its still too easy for lay persons and scientists on some polluters payroll to muddy up or dismiss as within a natural set of normal variances.

But I'll bet the extremes of hot and cold and their length are not only greater than they have been in the poles but would better represent the crisis. 

If the temperature spikes or there are more days of above melting temp weather AND the drops are colder than normal or there are more days of severe cold weather then the average wouldn't move much but the impact of the extremes would be devastating.

Anyone who has spent any time in the prairies knows that extremely cold air is unlikely to have snow in it as the crystals need a near 0c temp to form.

Anyone who has spent time in northern California knows that extremely warm air not only eliminates rainfall and speeds up the evaporation of the glaciers but dries out the forests until they're kindling. 

If the poles aren't getting as much snow because the temperature shifts to extreme cold quicker, a temp less likely to have snowfall, and then stays that way longer now; AND the summers are hitting highs or staying warmer longer than they used to then the average temp could still be within norms but the effects from these extremes would be dramatic to say the least.

That's the information that I'd like to see because most Canadians might not relate to "global warming" right now but no one can argue that the weather hasn't been getting more and more extreme more and more often.  And once you frame the discussion so that everyone can relate you’ll get a lot more traction on the issue.

20 things iHATE about MAC

Advertising can turn a lemon into lemonade or make something that really isn't that much different from your product look like junk. It's the reason McDonald's is the Number 1 burger joint in the world despite the crappy food they serve. It's also the reason MAC sales are surging while the nearly identical VISTA failed. Yup, you heard me, VISTA is MAC on a PC.

So why does everyone avoid computers with VISTA loaded? And they do. I know people who bought laptops with Vista and had them retrograded, which is a lot like buying a Mercedes and putting a Hyundai engine in it, then complaining because it doesn’t work right.

Well, a few hard core PC Gamers found VISTA's operating system slowed down their games, which often require 110% of their processing capabilities (you get 110% by spending a fortune on internal cooling systems that clock the processor at speeds well beyond what it’s designed for).

Then the Network Administrators started slagging it because it meant having to learn a whole new set of protocols and that not only meant work for them but it also increased the likelihood they’d miss something critical and get canned.

So once word got out that the Geek Elite was avoiding VISTA it didn't take APPLE long to cap on that and start their infamous "PC vs MAC" ads. After that you could literally see the fat lady warming up.

But here's the big joke to that. Geeks don't buy MACs because it doesn't matter how much you know about computers there’s nothing a series gamer can do to bypass Mac systems and goose the extra speed from it you need for a serious bout of Warcraft.

So the lemmings who bought the message and avoided VISTA were the people it was actually made for. And instead of using a system that was not only cheaper than a Mac but more compatible with 99% of the free world they leapt off the cliffs of doom and plummeted into the Mac Cult where the best thing you can say about your computer is that it looks nice.

But in case you're thinking of buying Mac and are still on the fence let me share just 20 of the big complaints I have with it:

1. PRICE: C'mon, you can get 3 PCs that'll do the same thing for the price of this system, and they actually have programs loaded in them that iNEED.

2. THE APPLE KEY. This is the single most annoying invention in the history of computing. It does the same thing a CONTROL key does on a PC, only it's one key further in on the keyboard which makes finding it without looking almost impossible.

3. THINGS DON'T CLOSE WHEN YOU CLICK X. On a PC the file ends operations when you click the red X, on a MAC it just minimizes and appears to go away but remains. After you forget all about it and you suddenly notice its still active you actually have to go MENU> PROGRAM> CLOSE> YES to get rid of it. Good luck if you're in a hurry.

4. THE DOCK: If you use a MAC you know bloody well what the problems here are. Could this be any less intuitive or more annoying? If you don’t use MAC go into an APPLE STORE and tell the cultists to leave you alone while you play with the “computer”. Open any three applications then minimize them and try to get from one to the next. hehehe

5. PROGRAMS FORCE THEMSELVES TO THE FRONT: Ever opened multiple apps on a PC. You can put them where you want and they'll close in reverse sequence to how you opened them. In MAC there are programs that decide for themselves to go up front SUDDENLY. Even if you want to see something else you can't because the program doing something in the background keeps popping up front. It means you can't touch type on a Mac if you're multitasking because you have no way of knowing which program you'll be typing in.

6. UPGRADING: This is sort of #1 again. A 500 gig PC internal Hard drive costs me $150, a 300 gig MAC internal Hard drive will cost me $750. WHUUUUU???

7. PROGRAMS: Oh sure, if all you're going to do is iLIFE it coz you only want to surf the net, check mail, take photos and listen to music then your overpriced MAC comes fully loaded. If you want to do ANYTHING else the programs costs at least 2x as much as they would for PC - AND THERE AREN'T MANY TO CHOOSE FROM so forget about shopping around. Oh and none of them are free so don't even bother looking.

8. SMALL DIALOGUE BOXES: You'd think for $3000 they could make a dialogue box big enough that you didn't need to squint at to read it. The 9 inch Mac screens went the way of the dinosaur decades ago, pity the programmers haven't realized that yet.

9. CONSISTENCY: Even if a feature is not necessarily intuitive, it’s easier to understand if it works the same way everywhere it’s encountered. Unfortunately, Mac isn’t as consistent as one might expect. For example, if you select a folder as the source for images in Desktop & Screen Saver preferences, it might work in one tab, but not in another.

10. DESKTOP: Why doesn't the pop-up menu near the top have a Fit Screen option that would proportionately stretch or shrink the image to match either the horizontal or the vertical pixel dimensions of the display? Such an option would work equally well with both portrait and landscape pictures, without clipping or aspect ratio distortion. The screen saver already does this by default, so why can’t Desktop?

11. DISAPPEARING SIDEBAR: Menu items should do what they say they will do and not have unintended consequences. Case in point: if you choose View > Hide Toolbar (Option-Command-T), not only does the toolbar disappear but so too does the Sidebar. This isn’t the behaviour described by the menu item, and it's really annoying when the Sidebar disappears unexpectedly.

12. DOESN'T NETWORK WELL: The moment we set things up so that the MAC could transfer files between it and other systems in our house we ran into the unexpected problem of the MAC freezing up on start up if those units were shut off. And it stayed that way until we confirmed that the other computers (which it treats as volumes in it's own system) weren't available. IT DID THIS EVERY SINGLE TIME UNTIL WE TOOK IT OFF THE NETWORK!!

13. ARE YOU SURE?: Okay, this can be a really useful function in a computer. However when your computer doesn't warn you that the unnamed scratch file IS being used by other applications and lets you delete it only to later discovery you've just lost 4 months work that's annoying. Particularly since it insists on warning you about completely harmless operations every single freaking minute of use!

14. THAT MEDIA TYPE IS NOT SUPPORTED: Huh? You know the Mac ad where it brags about being compatible with everything? HA!! I've had media files the Mac created and then like a father who can't handle the responsibility suddenly it completely refuses to recognize the file. It's visible, it just won't open. If I had a Dollar for every file I created in Mac but had to transfer to my PC, change into a compatible Mac file format and then import back into Mac to get onto the next step of what I wanted to do the bloody MAC would have paid for itself!

15. LACK OF HELP ONBOARD: Ever got a file that your PC didn't recognize? Notice how various applications pop up trying to help you find out why, or help you download the driver to make them work? Notice how most of that is free? iPHOTO doesn't do that. After adding a folder full of images into my iPHOTO library I started getting all sorts of dialog boxes telling me "the source files were unreadable because they were in an unrecognized file type". Fair enough, but iPHOTO doesn't offer any assistance to deal with this. Most bloody MAC programs don't. It either works or it doesn't iEXIST! However, the moment I import these into the supposedly more inferior PC I not only get help opening them but have the tools I need to convert them so my idiot MAC can view the bloody things. I've never had an extension I couldn't open in my PC. I might need to download a driver which the PC will not only help me find but install for me, often for free. I've got hundreds of pictures and videos my MAC doesn't even acknowledge and others it'll VIEW ONLY but won't otherwise touch. Bloody useless.

16. PINWHEEL PAUSES: Remember the blue screen of death? How long has it been since you saw that? I'm betting if you bought a PC in the last 5 years operating on XP or better it's been about 5 years. For some reason MAC, the self-proclaimed stability master, freezes up hourly while some mysterious program is working on something. Now, i've got quad processors so it should be able to do 4 things at once. The very least it could do was leave one processor for what I'm working on at the time and let the other 3 handle whatever the background thingy is that requires so much effort, but NOOOOOOOOOO, the whole computer freezes up sapping whatever productivity gains the Mac promised into some void - the same void where this mysterious application is that keeps causing the PINWHEEL OF INFREQUENT BOREDOM to appear.

17. PERMISSIONS: Ever worked on a network in your office? Notice how there are things you can't do because the Administrators have locked those functions out? Imagine now you're using your computer at home and you're the only one who uses it. You are the only user! Now imagine that you're trying to do something but suddenly your Mac says you don't have permission to perform that task. If you're lucky it might ask you to authenticate yourself as an administrator but if not you're screwed. So if you don't have permission to do, who does?

18. EMPTYING THE TRASH: Imagine you are trying to empty the Trash and a dialog box pops up notifying you that "the operation cannot be completed because the item is in use." Fair enough right? You don’t expect Mac OS X to allow you to delete a file that’s actually being used by another application, but apparently it's too much to expect to be told the name of the application or thread that’s laying claim to the document? You know, some info so you could figure out how to free it of the lifeline that's keeping you from flushing the trash!

19. APPLE STORE EMPLOYEES ARE USELESS: So I go into the APPLE STORE and I explain the problem I'm having with my Mac. I've already checked the internet and found lots of references to the problem but no solutions. You know what the APPLE EXPERT SAYS TO ME? "It shouldn't do that." Uh, yeah. I know. That's why I'm here. How do I fix it? “I don’t know, it shouldn’t do that.” Yeah…

20. JUST BECAUSE THE CABLES CONNECT DOESN'T MEAN IT'LL WORK: This is my favourite. I bought the Mac and because the G5 tower I was told I needed costs more than the most expensive PC on the market I opted not to buy the monitor. "No problem!" said the APPLE expert. Any monitor you have will plug in and work. So I got home and sure enough the spare monitor I had came with a cable that fit perfectly into the corresponding MONITOR connector on the Mac. I turned it on and voila it worked perfectly. I set everything up and then clicked the six steps required to shut her down. The Mac shut off and the whirring of the fan came to a halt and then I stood up to go do something else. Suddenly the Mac turned back on. I continued to do this until I decided to put everything on a powerbar I could manually switch off which was how I got the thing to stay off for the first few months. Skip ahead those months and an entirely unrelated problem had me on the Mac Help line. All of a sudden the 3rd techie on the other end asked me what kind of monitor I had. I told him, answered all his questions and then he said, "You can't plug the monitor into the monitor port. You need to get an adaptor and use this other port." Why? Because the monitor port was only for a Mac brand digital monitor and my generic monitor wasn't digital so even though it was compatable and had worked it was confusing the Mac and causing the restart problem. So I went to the APPLE STORE and bought the cheapest cable they had for the problem. It's 3 inches long and costs $50. The monitor only cost me $5. So when an Applenista brags about how universal Macs are, remember the caveat: "Yeah, if you've got the cash for the right adaptors."

So why do I use Mac then? Because someone convinced me it was a better platform to edit video on. I still use it for editing, but at least now I have a PC so I can do real work.